NY Mag's Jonathan Chait Backs Away from Obama's Bain Attacks

NY Mag's Jonathan Chait Backs Away from Obama's Bain Attacks

Jonathan Chait was pretty excited about the Boston Globe’s front page story on Bain Capital yesterday. The Globereport held the momentary promise of enabling Obama’s toughest attackson Romney to be judged, (or rather re-adjudicated) by fact checkers atthe Post and FactCheck.org. Everything hinged on when Romney left thecompany:

The Boston Globe today…reports that Romney has been lying about when he left BainCapital. This is utterly crucial. Both the fact-checking columns basetheir conclusions on Romney’s claim that he left Bain in 1999. Obama’sads are misleading, both say, because they hold Romney accountable forthings Bain did after 1999. The revelation that Romney was activelymanaging Bain renders both those judgments moot.

But today Chait has reversed himself and is clearly trying to climb off the Globe’s bandwagon. Where yesterday he claimed that Romney lied, today he offers a more reflective post on “What’s True and False in Obama’s Bain Attacks.” It’s not very hard to figure out the false part, though as we’ll see in a moment the true part is much more elusive:

President Obama and his allies…have attacked Romney’s recorditself. And what they’re saying is, on the basis of the facts availableto us, untrue…

The ads attacking Romney are based on pure conjecture. Obama has an ad saying of Romney, “he shipped jobs to China and Mexico.” But Bain Capital did those things after Romney stopped running the company.

So Obama’s attacks and his ads are false. That much is clear and Iguess we can offer some credit to Chait for admitting as much, despitehis initial eagerness to believe otherwise. But the headline promisedmore than a correction. It promised something true in Obama’s Bainattacks. So where is the true part?

The main point is that the role of business is different than the roleof government — even if you deny that businesses have socialresponsibilities, government still does.

First, I’m not sure that has been a part of Obama’s ads except in some “emanations of the penumbra” sense. But the real problem is thatChait is assuming the thing at issue. There’s no doubt that governmenthas social responsibilities, if by that you mean national defense, thecourts, and infrastructure that promotes the general welfare in thebroadest sense. What, it seems to me, we have been arguing about for thelast four years is the extent of that commitment.

Barack Obama has pushed for a differentdefinition of government’s social responsibilities. Are we committed to viewing health insurance as a right? Arewe committed to providing two years of unemployment benefits toeveryone who loses a job? Are we committed to food stamps for one out ofseven Americans and free government phones as well? More to the point,are we committed to these things even if we’re $15 trillion in debt andsinking deeper every year? The argument over those questions isn’t over. The 2010 election (and the currentsituation in Europe) make that clear. But Chait’s explanation of how this argument works against Romney politically is telling:

Romney’s political problem is that the changes to the businessworld he helped unleash are unpopular. Whether or not the old world ofbenevolent corporations of the sort his father ran are justifiable orcan survive in a global economy, people liked them.

People do like free stuff. It’s a conclusion that is rarely in dangerof contradiction. The problem of course is that the free stuff the government is giving away is not really free; the cost is merely shifted to someone else. Democrats, especially in this election, claim that someoneis “the rich,” but in reality there aren’t nearly enough rich people orcompanies to pay for everything we’re currently giving away. The peoplewho will really be stuck with the bill are future generations.

The notion thatbusinesses have no obligation save making money for their shareholdersis a hard sell, both conceptually and in the practical outcomes itcreates, like mass layoffs. Romney is attempting to portray his businessexperience as “creating jobs,” but he was actually in the business ofcreating wealth. Obama has every right to expose that contradiction. He doesn’t have a right to make things up in the process.

Hold on to your hats! Romney is a capitalist, not a New Deal progressive.Looking at the state of the budget and the national debt, some might saythat’s exactly what we need right now. In any case, even Chait agreesthat the thin reed of Romney’s capitalism can’t justify theintentionally dishonest ads coming out of the Obama campaign.